Recently I saw some TV clips from MSNBC and CNN, one critiquing Herman Cain, the other an interview with Michael Moore. They both reminded me that one of strangest aspects of modern American society is the system of indulgences that permeates our entire culture.

In a nutshell, our American elites, even if well-meaning with real concern for the less fortunate, have adopted the medieval practice of compartmentalization. Loud demonstrations of general progressive piety exempt one from consistency. Our medieval ancestors could practice usury if they helped repair a collapsed nave or joined a Crusade, as traditional Christianity tried to deal with an imperfect world of important Christians who did not wish to live by their doctrine.

Today, liberalism puts a comparable burden on its elites: can one occupy Wall Street and still enjoy the luxury of that iPhone 4s? Did the university professor in Zuccotti Park worry about Wall Street when his TIAA-CREF account used to return 8% plus per annum? Can we still jet to Tuscany and worry about carbon footprints? Can we live in Chevy Chase, Malibu, or Woodside and be stalwarts on the barricades of racial integration and multiculturalism? How can we make $200,000 a year as assistant vice provost for diversity affairs, when a part-time lecturer gets 1/5 for the same class a full-time, top-step professor teaches?

Examine the burdens of modern liberal exemption and indulgence.

Race

Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst Karen Finney said this the other day, “One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”

Accusing either Cain of being an Uncle Tom sort or his supporters of being racists in backing a supposedly minstrel-like African-American (and that is what the successful entrepreneurial Cane is reduced to) is now a sort of standard left-wing narrative. There are no repercussions in such smears, no charges of racism. I assume that when Cain authentically drops his g’s, he is a sort of embarrassment to the liberal elite; when Obama does that in front of the Black Caucus, apparently we are to assume that this is some sort of wink-and-nod necessity for the former Harvard Law Review editor to do the necessary pandering to his “base.” Indulgences for racist stereotyping are purchased by loud proclamations of liberalism. Were Cornel West or Harry Belafonte a conservative, their rantings would long ago have been written off as false-consciousness racism.

Big Money

Michael Moore’s wealth is usually pegged around $50 million. If half his fortune were liquid and conservatively put into a savings account at about 2% interest, Moore’s annual income would be about $500,000 per year. That income would easily put him into the now hated “1%”, a group which he and others have blasted as schemers who benefit from capitalism at the expense of the 99%.

Yet when asked about his own 1% status recently on CNN, Moore was left sputtering and grasping for straws about his high-school education and all the philanthropic things he does. In other words, his liberal fides supposedly purchase him an indulgence from the supposed sins of being rich — in the manner that the left, the media, and popular culture do not go after George Soros for nearly breaking the Bank of England (making a $1 billion profit in currency speculation), or being convicted of insider trading in France (upheld on appeal). There are no signs at Occupy Wall Street damning the Soros speculations that fund “good” causes.

Savvy wealthy people — whether the Kennedy Trust beneficiaries, a Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett — understand that minimizing tax exposure, trying to avoid federal inheritance taxes through foundations, or accumulating vast riches are, in the liberal sense of ethics, offset by progressive platitudes. In short, we are supposed to think differently of John Kerry trying to avoid taxes on his multimillion-dollar superfluous yacht than we do of a car dealer’s Lexus. Warren Buffett can praise big government and higher taxes as the indulgence necessary to feel OK about shorting the government billions of future inheritance taxes by giving his fortune to a privately-run foundation that apparently is felt to be more efficient than the Department of Human Services, who, after all, could use the cash in these times of mega-deficits.

Greener Than Thou

Rarely have indulgences been more transparent than in the carbon-offset racket of the early 21st century, in which Al Gore and others established companies to do green audits on millionaires, enabling them to keep the big Malibu beach house, the Net jet account, or the 20,000 sq. ft. estate. Burning nearly 20,000 kilowatts per month or flying on private jets is the sort of indulgence purchased by Earth in the Balance or An Inconvenient Truth.

Green indulgences allow one to consume almost anything one wishes, to such an extent that one can assume that usually the loudest and most influential green advocates are themselves greater than average consumers of carbon. Loud advocacy of cap-and-trade might win you release from the purgatory of a rather large house.

150 Comments, 41 Threads

1.
Doug Wright

VDH: Great essay, as usual. Only 1-year and 8-days til we vote out The One, The Messiah, He Who Raised the Sea Levels, The Smartest Man in the Room, the Most Brilliant Orator Ever, from office. That is unless he further unleashes his OWS masses upon us, causing an appearance of mass insurrection, which would allow him to seize further control over us all.

So, Professor, the timing of the victory over Statism and Socialized Arrogance means that we fully expect at least 52 to 65 more such essays reminding us and the world that Obama’s form of Big Government shall not last.

I too admire Dr. Hanson’s essays, but I would not be too complacent about defeating POTUS next year. It will be a hard, long, slog, and a great deal depends on nominating an electable candidate. Social democrats/populists control MSM, public education, the leading newspapers, and have growing minority supporters. I wrote about their control of the elite universities here: http://clarespark.com/2011/10/24/turning-points-in-the-ascentdecline-of-the-west/, referring to VDH’s last essay in PJM. I have no doubt that Obama and his lieutenants will bring us down, but am hopeful that a majority of Americans are not possessed of a death wish.

Libs have absolutely no subtlety or irony. That’s why they make such strange bedfellows with Islamists and Fascists. Neither do they.
This situation will eventually cure itself, as both of those eternal scourges frikkin’ hate libs, way worse than we do. Like, you know: beheading. Or stoning.
Too bad. Good luck, schmucks!

Perhaps you have no sense of wit. Every single true thing is not necessarily literally true. Sometimes, mere language is not enough.
It’s called “an advanced civilization”. It contains irony, and exaggeration. Perhaps you’ve not heard of it.
Obviously, you’ve not heard of it.

Interestingly there is an example of this. The monastery of Cluny was built by a wealthy man who had made his wealth through murder or some such evil. He funded the construction of the monastery and the monks for some time in the hope that their prayers would save his soul. There is an excellent book about it called “Cluny”.

Full agreement on the MEI, cornhead. One way to fight back with respect to dishwasher soap that doesn’t clean: Trisodium phosphate. TSP is used to clean tile, concrete and other non-porous surfaces. Until just recently it was found in just about all brands of dishwasher detergent. Thanks to MEI you no longer find it in your dishwasher soap after the Earth Muffins successfully lobbied to have it removed. Not only does it clean, but it also acts as a lubricating agent in your dishwasher. Without it your dishwasher isn’t going to last near as long it might have. But take heart. You can buy TSP at Lowes, Home Depot, or most hardware stores. It doesn’t take much- Just put about a quarter teaspoon in with your dish detergent and your dishes will come out sparkling clean. And your dishwasher will thank you too.

you will need to use more than a quarter teaspoon. i use about 1:3 tsp:detergent. also, if your glassware is really grungy, wash it in white vinegar. the tsp will keep it clean, but it won’t take off a grunge layer.

Any suggestions if we use the liquid dishwashing stuff? It is thick like a gel. My wife has been griping about the dishes not getting clean, so she’s been running the machine on the extended cycle/tough scrub/extended rinse.

The manufacturers did not have to remove TSP from the commercial brands. As of six months ago (the last time I bought) you could order commercial formulated soap over the net. I purchased six boxes of Cascade commercial formula and it was delivered to my doorstep. A few weeks later, my dishwasher was clean again.

Let us not forget about all the poisonous mercury in all the new “green” lightbulbs that require a HazMat team to clean up if one gets broken – why aren’t the granola bar people worried about mercury any more?

How about the tens of millions of Indians and Burmese and Thais, and Indonesians who died because of the DDT ban. Some of them might have died of cancer! Maybe even 1 million.
Approximately a 1:100 tradeoff. To be conservative.
Hey. They ain’t white. Screw ‘em.
Luv them ‘Crats. Don’t trouble them with things like Math. They never passed Algebra.

Johahn Tetzel is not remembered fondly. He was the aggressive marketer of indulgences whose activity helped spur Luther’s break from the Catholic Church. Indulgences were often used by the rich to “wipe away” their guilt for oppressing the poor.

Francis of Assisi, on the other hand, has a much better reputation. He is remembered for telling his followers to preach the Gospel always and, if necessary, use words.

Five centuries ago, there was a strong reaction to the indulgences in the Church. Might we be headed for a similar revolution in the world of liberal politics?

Well Dianna, in place of you having to offer any indulgences, you will be required to perform a penance. Dr. Hanson will lock you in a room where you will be required to read stacks of remedial college essays without any pens, or red pencils, to correct any errors you find. Hopefully, you will learn your lesson. But, though I don’t know you, I think that critical eye of yours is beyond taming and you will continue to stay on the look out for spelling errors as well as any Strunk and White infractions you come across. ;-)

Please don’t ask me why I checked to see IF Dianna responded to my attempt at humor before going nighty night, but I knew I was setting myself up for a BIG red mark somewhere in that comment. ;) Thanks for the laugh Allston! A great way to end my weekend.

Once again, I find VDH charmingly indulgent as he implies that the progressive criminals have consciences and purchase their own indulgences to salve them.

It’s much more likely that they couldn’t care less. They feel totally entitled and do the things Mr Hanson describes only in the most back-handed way, much as our wealthiest self-styled elite pay pittaces in taxes just to say they do, even though they could easily avoid them entirely if they so chose. It’s more like cheap insurance than an indulgence to ward off a guilty conscience.

They are criminals and should be treated as such. It’s that simple. Their crimes are among the worst in history, even though many consider themselves paragons of virtue, because their crimes affect so many people. Ruthless medieval kings, at most, could ruin the lives of a few million people. Al Gore, were he to succeed, would depopulate the planet by billions. Which is the greater butcher?

I lean toward the latter. Elite-lib-progs, if they think of it at all, are convinced the rules simply do not apply to them. Somehow, they’re always eager to add more restrictions, guidelines, burdens and bureaucracy for others. Their ability/willingness to game the systems they’ve built is a clear sign of their superiority, while others’ inability/unwillingness to do the same is a sign of simpleton status.

They’ve constructed a private and public narrative that ensures maximum personal rewards safely protected by a nearly impermeable teflon coating. Not admirable, but certainly clever. And sadly effective.

Proreason wrote, “They are criminals and should be treated as such. It’s that simple. Their crimes are among the worst in history.”

I can only conclude that you have either no sense of historical perspective, or simply love the sound of your own ridiculous assertions. What sputtering foolishness to assert that your fellow Americans, the other party in America’s two-party system are guilty of the worst crimes in history. I think your logic must run something like it is worse to raise taxes and regulations “unfairly” on 300 million people than it is to send 6 million to death camps. Have you no sense of proportion?

Dwight asks “Have you no sense of proportion?”. LGoPs asks Dwight “Have you no sense of math?”
You quite readily reel off the 6 million figure – you must have been instructed under the American education system – much like a trained seal in a water park show, regurgitating the only example of atrocity our students get taught. But I ask you an arithmetic question: which number is larger, 6 million or 100 million? And do you even know what the hell it is I’m talking about? Probably not, due to the aforementioned education deficit, so I’ll answer for you. 100 million is bigger. Way, way bigger. And 100 million is the number killed (by conservative estimates) by the collectivists of recent history. And this collective road is the one that the progressives that proreason is talking about are taking us down. A road far more deadly than your dismissive little analogy on regulations and taxes for the 300 million alludes to. Because when the collectivist progressives realize that the taxes and regulations aren’t enough and they have in fact ‘run out of other people’s money’ do you think they will pause and reflect and perhaps say ‘maybe we were wrong? This doesn’t seem to be working. Let’s give the conservative way a try’? If you believe that, I have a little gulag I’d like to sell you…or send you to. No, what they will do is what all good collectivist fascist monsters do – they will double down and openly seize whatever is still left in private hands. And the Billy Ayers’ among them will address the problem of those – how many was it?….25 million or so who object to the seizure. But then actually, it will be a lot more than 25 million because Billy made that estimate over 30 years ago and we’ve grown since then. Regardless, there’s going to be a whole lot of us that need to be dealt with. But it’s nothing that the Prog’s will shy away from, because they’re good with big numbers. They’re only bad at keeping good records – which is why nobody knows whether it’s 100 million or 150 million dead. Because contrary to the way they portray themselves, Progs don’t give a rat’s ass about real people. People to them are a tool, to be used to manipulate emotions and get their way and then once their goal is reached, to be discarded or steamrollered or gulaged. In their scores of millions. Which is a large number. Larger even, than 6.
So yeah, I agree with proreason and disagree with your ‘sense of proportion’.

But in case you don’t know, dwight is the guy that pops up to support Stalin any time that name comes up. He consders Uncle Joe to be one of the good guys. He doesn’t consider the 100 million to be a problem at all; it’s just one of the features of the long march.

Destroying the United States is the greatest crime in history. No country has done more for humanity since the US was formed, without question, probably by an order of magnitude, certainly for the last 100 years. The US has created more wealth, saved more lives, deposed more violent tyrants, helped more people, and raised the standard of living of billions. Obama, who is deliberately trying to destroy the US, is the greatest criminal in history for that reason, and he is abetted by Reid, Pelosi, Frank and many others, who are also historic criminals. As a group, they are the greatest criminals in history. They have already done unbelievable damage to humanity and seek to do much much more. And it’s deliberate. The only reason others, like your favorite Stalin, would rival them is because of violence and genocide. But you don’t have to use violence to destroy lives and eradicate people. Even today, 3 years after international marxists deliberately caused a depression to get their blowhard elected, home owner wealth in the US is down 7 trillion. Investment wealth is down 5 trillion. That’s just in the US. You can at least double that for the rest of the world. Lost wealth causes misery and loss of lives…certainly millions, probably many more. You don’t have to put people on the rack to be a criminal.

Re my casual comment about short presidents, Mitch Daniels is 5′ 7″, which is nearly 3 inches shorter than the average 60 year-old American male. There hasn’t been a president under 5′ 9″ since 1900, when the average height for a 60 year-old American male was was more than 2 1/2 inches less than today, and McKinley was also the last to be the average height for his age group. Those are the facts. If babbling bobbcat can’t draw a reasonable conclusion from that, no amount of information can help him. Frankly, just knowing that Daniels is 5′ 7″ and not a certified genius is enough to know he could never be elected president.

If the other folks here at PJM want to let you two stand for the reasoned opinion here, God bless them. If you want to put Stalin as history’s number one murderer, you would have a good case and little argument from me, but when you put current United States’ politicians into that category, your nuttiness speaks for itself.

Dwight, you’re right as usual. Imagining that Obama is trying to induce economic collapse or foment violence in the streets would be absurd.

Bill Ayers and his Weathermen friends talked about the need to murder 30,000,000 Americans to bring about their Communist revolution. As I’m sure you know Bill Ayers is an old confidant and political ally of Obama’s. Is this an alarming revelation or something that can and should be safely ignored? Or something else altogether?

um little Dwight, have you ever like, looked into Obama’s life history? You should give it a go sometime when you have a spare week or so.

Living life with blinders on is not a formula for success.

If you polled to find out how many Americans believe little lenin is deliberately destroying the economy, the numbers would be over a hundred million. It isn’t a fringe observation by any means. All I have done is extrapolate what destroying the US means. What it means is the greatest crime ever attempted.

And btw, the hard left is always violent. Obama would be as well if he thought he could get away with it. The reason it’s true is that there has never been a hard leftist who didn’t prefer violence. And then, of course, there are his “friends”, Trumka, Ayers, Wright, the Jew haters, the Pakis, the Palestinians. People who don’t have blinders on can connect the dots.

I don’t know the figures (numbers), but it may be safe to say that Communism killed more people than the Black Death. Safer to say that we won’t ever know how many deaths were caused by Communism/Collectivism.

Remember also that Marx/Engels considered Socialism the first goal to achieve prior to their ideal of pure Communism.

I didn’t say you shouldn’t express your opinion, I said your opinion is worthless since the facts are strongly against it. Anybody can assert stuff forever, as liberals do all the time, but if you can’t back your opinion with anything beyond “I think”, asserting (particularly asserting it with the implication that party you are disagreeing with is a fool) just makes you sound like, well, a fool.

Dwight, many of us have been aware for years of the dying and misery caused by greenie progressives (think Al Gore, Michael Moore, Greenpeace, etc.) via the ban of even judicious use of DDT to control malaria carrying mosquitoes. This tragic story was re-told just a few days ago in PJM. Worldwide hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of children especially have suffered from malaria and meningitis and have died horribly and needlessly because of the self-promoting arrogance and willful ignorance of liberal do-gooders. If that isn’t criminal then what is it?

The estimate is that 5 million people have died since DDT was banned. And the violent leftists still block it.

That’s one tiny thing.

How many lives has ethanol cost? How many lives could have been saved with the billions of dollars of graft poured into Solyndra and other scams. How many lives could have been saved with the 900 billion sprinkled by the criminal in the white house to his foot soldiers. How many lives did creating the 2008 financial crisis end prematurely? How many lives have liberal policies in the inner cities of the US cost? How many lives have been aborted for convenience?

Somebody has probably accounted for it all. The total number could be in the billions, even without counting Dwight’s favorite dictators. All for good causes, of course. No matter what the consequences, if the violent left declares something a good cause, it must be worth the pain an misery, by definition.

We should just give the well meaning leftists a chance. It’s extreme to criticize them. We should all be cool and rational like Dwight.

There will be more deaths if obamacare is allowed to be implemented. The government will be stumbling all over itself to make it work. Rationing of care and rationing of treatments and drugs that could save lives will be standard practice. In addition, there will be unnecessary deaths because of bumbling medical mistakes they will make.

Canada has had 40 years to work out the kinks in their socialized medicine system, and still care is rationed and people die.

I’ve finally gotten it through my numskull that liberals disdain people. They are even filled with loathing for themselves. Years ago, I read M. Scott Peck’s book, “The People of the Lie.” The “people of the lie” are the liberals, who all suffer from character and personality disorders. It used to be that the Democratic party stood for some good things, but no more. It has been taken over lock, stock, and barrel by far-left lunatics who have one desire: to destroy everything so that they gain power.

The Left and their allies, those who I refer to as TWANLOC; Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen, have no sense of personal morality attached to their actions. Or at least no more than the members of the Politburo, or the chiefs of the Main Directorates of the Chekisti in its various incarnation had/have. It is all power and control.

And just as Bonaparte said that “Every French soldier carries a marshal’s baton in his knapsack.”; every shivering dupe under a plastic tarp at an #Occupy site, and every union thug, can see themselves behind a desk on the third floor of whatever new complex becomes the American analog of the yellow building on Lubyanskaya ploschad’.

Any Reformation is not going to be totally by parliamentary means, I suspect. There is an analog in the first half of the 1600′s. It is not going to be pleasant for anyone of either side.

And inside every one of those skinny, bespectacled, stringy-haired castrati is a vision of becoming a latter day Strelnikov coursing “flyover country” in his armored train seeking out and exterminating the bitter clingers. Part of me would REALLY like to invest them in their cities and cut off the resources of flyover country that they rely on. Maybe after a period of eating other, the survivors could be re-educated.

Yeah, the irony is that if you say out loud that the left are the ones who think like and have more in common ideologically with the Nazis every professor, reporter, and lefty busy-body is the Country is excoriating you and demanding at minimum an apology, and what they’d really like is to have you hung, drawn, quartered, and buried in an unmarked grave.

Yes, it always amazes me (and amuses me) that all of the lefties seem to think that once revolution occurs, victory is achieved, and the new order is instituted, they are all going to be ruling elites. How much room can there be at the top? Most of these useful idiots will find themselves rubbing elbows with the other proletariats. And some of them will find themselves dead when the killing begins.

The French Revolution is particularly instructive. Robispierre and Saint Just whipped the mob into a frenzy, convincing them that only through them could they gain true freedom. The most educated of the population (aristocrats, statesmen, educators, clergy) were all murdered. Wealth was destroyed. 600,000 people were killed. Hundreds of thousands of people fled the country. What did the people get in the end? Brutal totalitarians in the form of Robispierre and Saint Just, who were many times worse than the previous ruling elite.

The occupy wall street crowd thinks that everything will be rainbows and lollipops if they get what they want (and who even knows what that is). If they do get what they want, they will rue the day they ever wanted it.

If you want to try to understand liberals, please read Ann Coulter’s new book, “Demonic.” I highly recommend it.

You forgot to mention that Robespierre and St. Joust also died and at the hands or rather blades of their ‘creations’ and that the French Revolutions end did not come until a dictator took over and attempted world domination. Remember the ‘little Emperor’ with his hand supposedly in his coat? Ahh, yes, that’s what we need, another Napoleon. History does have a way of repeating, does it not, since that 99% is obviously and purposefully ignorant of it.

You are right. It took Napoleon to bring order back into French society, and wasn’t that a lot of fun for Europe.

Did you know that, of the major elite universities in America, only Harvard has a course on the French Revolution? This is because the liberals who run our colleges and universities don’t want people to learn about the French Revolution. They like to compare the French Revolution to the American Revolution, and they don’t want anyone to know about the brutality and atrocities that actually occurred in France so that they can get away with their false comparison.

Before the revolution, it is mostly some combination of 1 and 2. After? Mostly 3′s (with only a few 1′s thrown in). I had been putting forward this formula for a while, but now I am reading the book “Dupes” that really documents it. Yikes! Where do these idiots keep coming from?

Most thinking people agree that collectivism, in all its manifestations – progressivism, socialism, communism – is based on the lie of demanding equality of outcome for everyone…except of course for those pushing the idea. These ‘pushers’ will be the new nomenklatura, the apparatchiks and enforcers who, with the power of governmental force, i.e., guns, will make sure that everyone else is equal (in misery, not wealth). It is a sad testament to their effectiveness in undermining our institutions, especially education and the information media, that there are so many of us who cannnot see through their lies. Dr. Hanson exposes them for the villians that they are, on a weekly basis and for that I am grateful. I just despair that not enough hear the message or have been too dumbed down to heed it even if they did. I fear that we will be one of the only civilizations in history that, to my limited knowledge, willfully committed suicide and turned themselves into serfs. My only hope is that there is some element in our character – shared by all those who struggled, and struggle to this day, to reach these shores – that will ultimately rebel at this collectivist evil and defeat it. Let our battle cry be “Americans Don’t Serf”.

Right on, bro. I’m thinking that the 2008 election cycle was an anomaly. Bush was a splendid post-9/11 leader, in terms of his boldness and his willingness to take on the enemy, but he & his administration failed miserably in explaining, honesty and openly, why taking down Saddam Hussein (with or without WMD stockpiles) was essential to our national security. He allowed the media to run circles around him and to define his objectives in the War on Terror — which made it all the more impossible to keep the American people on his side when the Iraq situation started to quagmire. Then there were the ridiculous attempts Bush made to curry favor with his implacable liberal opponents by signing off on MORE government expansion rather than less (including the monstrously ill-conceived Department of Homeland Security — which Obama and Big Sis have turned into the largest usurper of American freedom since Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans in WWII). And then came Comprehensive Immigration Reform (a.k.a., Amnesty for illegals). Talk about throwing a brimming bucket of ice water on your core constituency! Which was followed by the coup de grace: The Bailout, which was wholeheartedly supported by the Democrats, and only partially accepted by Republicans — although the latter would receive full blame for it, even AFTER Obama doubled down on it at the same time that he blamed Bush for wrecking the economy. And mind you throughout ALL of this history, you had the illustrious MSM siding against traditional American values every step of the way, which they capped off by handing us the McCain nomination with its attendant Sarah Palin smear campaign.

And so, we ended up with a media creation, Barack Obama, as our president. Un-vetted. Un-qualified. And utterly disinterested in American world leadership.

I think the American people are much better than this. The stars were aligned against our great nation in 2008. We got lost, for a while. But I still believe. In 2010, traditional, liberty-loving Americans came together. I see no indication that the revival has lost any steam. The current Occupy-Wall-Street phenomenon is sharpening the contrast between Liberal vs. Conservative governance. America is a right of center polity. This will be proven, once again, in 2012. And the MSM will pay the price for their utter abandonment of professional objectivity.

False. It was an update to Clinton’s Goals 2000 scheme. Then there was Sen. Kennedy’s role in shaping what eventually came to Bush’s desk for signature.

Half a loaf is better than none might be Bush’s defense for going ahead with it. You might not agree and try to argue that it’s a bum loaf through and through. Still, consider this: because of NCLB’s testing requirements we have evidence that no matter how school unions and maladministrations cook the books, they’re producing dummies. NCLB is even revealing a reverse Lake Woebegon effect. Most students trapped in government-run schools are below “proficient”.

Don’t forget all of the dishwashers that have ended up in landfills after the ‘greenies’ forced the hands of dishwasher machine soap companies to have all of the phosphates removed from their detergents which ended up causing dishwashers to clog up and stop working.

“Assistant Vice Provost for Diversity Affairs” – These no show jobs really exist. I was looking through a database of all the job titles and salaries for state workers in Massachusetts and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of them.

You could eliminate 90% of the politically appointed positions in any government and the only people who would notice would be foreign agents, lobbyists, corrupt contractors and grantees, and reporters.

Hanson is on to something with his “Rarefied Exploitation” concept: The grotesque expansion of middle management in Colleges and Universities. “…The administrative elite, whose numbers have soared to near 1/1 ratios with faculty on many campuses…”

But this topic is not “taboo,” it’s the soft white underbelly of higher education. In this climate, the parasitic bureaucrats are vulnerable, almost impossible to defend. Glenn Reynold’s Instapundit has done an excellent job exposing this topic.

A lot of young, middle-class parents are doing the math on their child’s future. They see the inflation of higher education and they are terrified. Tuition, even at California State Universities (go CSUF!), has become insane.

If a FOX News or a Herman Cain (go Herman!) picked up this issue, they would transform a major aspect of the American economy.

You know, we on the conservative/Republican side of the ditch do control over half the state governments. In most of those governments is the power to appoint boards of regents, in some cases high officials of universities, and in, I think, all of them the legislative power of appropriation. In those states, and mine is one of them, it is our own damned fault that communists control the public university. My state has had a Republican legislature for almost thirty years and is now in the third four year term of Republican governors and yet the university system is nothing but a sinecure for out of work Democrat politicians and apparatchniks.

Doesn’t matter; they wouldn’t get them. But, you’re right one of the reasons Republican executives have so much trouble governing is that most conservatives/Republicans don’t want to be government employees when they grow up. The Democrats have a whole shadow government out there that people go back and forth between the government and the front organizations. Most activist Republicans are small business people, tradesmen, and such and they would have to abandon their business to take a two or four year temporary job. Governments are structured by Democrats to employ the maximum number of Democrats, so a Republican governor or President couldn’t fill all the appointed positions with loyal, competent Republicans if his/her life depended on it.

To the issue of boards of regents etc. they should at least vett the positions carefully do avoid activist Democrats and educrats.

The problem is that the fight will be tooth-and-nail, eternally. The opposing side is tenacious and they literally have nothing else to do, while those who live in the real world have lives to live and productive jobs to work at, and get discouraged at the mean and abusive people that they find at their throats every time that they dare to try to assert themselves.
Add to that that most people on our side try to find the good in people and just find it hard to believe how nasty many leftists can be. The other side, being so consumed with hate and condescension, look at us and see themselves, and have no trouble painting all of us as demons – which motivates them all the more, I think.

Excellent point! “Assistant Vice Provost for Diversity Affairs”-ever notice who is named to these positions? And ever notice that they speak not of how diverse the professors, staff, administration and Board is but only of the need for diversity in the student body? Also do historically black colleges have “Assistant Vice Provost for Diversity Affairs” representatives? Is there one for the NBA/NFL? How about for the nightly new anchors?

Being a loud leftist allows you to get away with not just fiscal hippie-ocrisy, it also allows you to:

1)Commit vehicular manslaughter/reckless homicide by driving a young girl, not your wife…off a bridge;

2)It allows you to run prostitution out of your basement;

3)It allows you to cook the books at Fannie and Freddie;

4)It allows you to slander men in uniform, with false memories seared into your phony conscience;

5)It allows you to profiteer off a climate hoax;

6)It allows you to wield a weapon at a polling place and threaten to kill cracker babies…in fact, it even allows you to murder;

7)It allows you to run guns to drug cartels;

8)It allows you to run completely unvetted for leader of the free world, hiding your transcripts, your social security card background, your associations with known plotters of mass murder, a videotape of you at a fete for known anti-Semitics and the history of your law license.

9) It allows you to get away with plotting to plant nail bombs to kill young men in uniform and their innocent dates.

It allows all this and more. Coverup, distortion, slander are at your disposal in the propaganda machine, which gets cranked up and works overtime whenever you get caught…again…trying to destroy the country or simply committing a heinous offense.

If a non-leftist jaywalks…that’s the crime of the century. If a leftist murders, rapes, steals…it’s a non-story. Living in a land of hippie-ocrisy is a fun house mirror experience. It’s been a sickening ride. I would like to get off now.

I’ve read columns by liberals in which they said seriously that their failure to reduce unemployment and restore a vibrant economy isn’t really so bad–because at least they care about struggling families.

See? We’ve got millions of Americans out of work, and the unemployment rate among the college graduates of the Class of 2011 is 11.2%. But at least we know Obama cares!

Liberalism is more like Protestantism in that only belief is required. Just believing as a liberal makes you a good person. Charitable acts are nice but not really necessary. Ritual proclamations of liberal belief are required in certain circumstances, generally when a suspect person has said something politically incorrect, but I can’t think of any obvious religious parallel for that.

One of the things that struck me about the death of Steve Jobs of Apple Computer fame was the criticism of what some felt was his insufficient charitable giving. A man who provided the opportunities for thousands to earn their livelihoods by producing products that were used and enjoyed by millions is damned by less than faint praise for his failure to subscribe to the “redistribute the wealth” scripture.

These same people are, however, very comfortable with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s scholarship fund that will help the “people of color” even if they are middle or upper class, but will not fund a scholarship for a poor white student from Appalachia, or a West Virginia coal town.

Thanks, Victor, for yet another bill of particulars to set against the feckless. We all know what they do, and that it’s endless, but you do a service with these itemized invoices. Still, you’re more than an accountant, and it’s time we examined what’s really been going on.

May I suggest a theme? “The progressive project is and always has been an attempt to transfer wealth, status, and strength from those who create these things to those who covet them. The creators work at objectively measurable pursuits; those who would take their fruits are those who do not. As the work of progressives is manifestly less valuable, the transfer will not take place through free exchange; it can only be effected through the use of force, the power of government’s guns. The destruction of freedom is the condition of their success.”

Sure, the Church is still amongst us but has nowhere near the power it weilded in the Middle Ages. No one is afraid of it today, not even the faithful. Most of its members view it as a kind of pleasant anachronism whose dictates can be discarded or adhered to as convenient. But that’s what happens to movements that lose their real moral authority, the sense that what they stand for is right, and replace it with the false economy that trading and bargaining for its blessings creates. Et tu, American liberalism? The descent into oblivion awaits.

Actually, the “reformation” in Democratic Party circles occurred in 1968, notably at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. That was where those within the party who regarded themselves as secular versions of Jesus “cleared the moneychangers from the Temple”- in their own imaginations.

Leaving them free to remake the Party in their own (self-perceived) “perfect” image. With the results we see today. A party radicalized and dogmatized to the point that, as Reagan once observed, it “has moved so far to the left that it has left the understandable universe”.

About the same time, the same thing was happening to Islam, under the impetus of the philosophy of the then-just-recently-deceased Sayyid Qutb. The result was the same; radicalism coupled with a missionary fervor to remake the world- and the Devil take those who don’t “shut up and sing”.

Even the Lutheran Reformation, as necessary as it was due to the excesses and corruption of the Church at the time, was not without its downside. Among other things, Luther himself didn’t much like Jews (thereby giving at least a facade’ of “respectability” to European anti-Semitism which has lasted down to the present), and the failure of the Protestant majority in Germany, etc., to bring the nobility along with them in any noteworthy numbers would result in the Thirty Years’ War half a century later.

When wishing for a “Reformation”, first make sure that what you’re looking at is not itself the result of a previous one. And then consider that “reformers” can often be, in Frank Herbert’s words, “people with a a headful of resentments and bad ideas with no legitimate outlet”.

It was not 1968. That year, the old-style Democrats like Hubert Humphrey and George Meany still retained control of the Dem Party.

The real turning point came two years later in 1970, when those New Left activists who had rioted in the 1960s got a little older and got themselves ensconced on the Democratic National Committee. There they forced through a bunch of resolutions calling for “reparations” to North Vietnam and other far-left-wing things.

The only morality progressives know is the simple-minded siren song of equality. However, this is by no means morality, it is sheer moral laziness masquerading as virtue.

True charity is personal, not collective. Personal morality is hard, which progressives don’t want to consider. Instead, they want the easy way out, by adopting the pretense of morality, a lazy vicarious excuse for morality. Progressives want to feel good while letting the State enforce their morality for them.

Hey Doc, Started reading The End of Sparta and lovin’ it! Mind you I am a phil-hellene and so easy to please when it comes to fiction in this genre. Nevertheless I am impressed so far with how you are building the tension between the opposing armies before the great battle at Leuctra. So often I’ve wondered about the political and cultural dynamics that prevailed in Thebes when it chose to take on dreaded Sparta.

Your portrayal of hoplite warfare, that is, what a typical Greek yeoman might be thinking and experiencing as he donned his panoply and made his way to the battlefield is gripping. As are the glimpses you provide of human passion: the pride, vanity, greed, fear, jealousy, lust… as well as the endless search for truth, justice and meaning – that animate human activity in all times. Though they are universal, they are often expressed in unique ways. And sometimes, as was the case with classical Greece (and contemporary America), they drive mankind to new heights of knowledge, self-awareness and physical mastery. Thanks for bringing this fascinating age to life! Now, back to the “dancing floor of war”.

I wholeheartedly agree with President Obama that America needs real equality for its citizens. So I suggest that all the corrupt politicians, even those with the deepest pockets, be handcuffed and sent to prison. And since Obama contends he doesn’t have to follow laws he doesn’t like, I think we put him on an equal footing with his friends who encourage him to use lawyers to get around the U.S. Constitution. Hence, no trial for Obama and his kind. If Obama has authority to kill an American citizen without a trial, I think it only fair that Obama goes without one, too. Go to jail, Obama, go straight to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect the protections that the U.S. Constitution affords its citizens. I see it as only fair.

In a nutshell, our American elites, even if well-meaning with real concern for the less fortunate, have adopted the medieval practice of compartmentalization.

That’s a pretty big IF.

Loud demonstrations of general progressive piety exempt one from consistency.

The fundamental “progressive” tenet is…if you’ve yakked about something, have verbally asserted your piety, you’ve dealt adequately with it and are free to go about your merry, self-indulgent ways.

Teddy Kennedy was the poster child for this sort of shtick.

It is a sign of the times that so called progressives manage to not be embarrassed by the glaring, immense gulf between their words and their own personal lives.

While their cadre of apparently not-so-bright True Believers continues to believe that hypocrites like Michael Moore and John Kerry (tip of the iceberg, naming only these 2 individuals) stand up for them.

Here’s another way to make perfect sense of the actions of any leftist (sorry, I lost the source reference)…

“Conservative programs are condemned if anyone is harmed, regardless of the number helped. Progressive programs are praised if anyone is helped, regardless of the number harmed. After all, conservatives are evil and the good they may do is an unintended by-product, while progressives have the purest of motives and any harmful outcomes merely mean the program needs more tweaking.”

From thread #6, Gylippus said, “As I’m sure you know Bill Ayers is an old confidant and political ally of Obama’s. Is this an alarming revelation or something that can and should be safely ignored? Or something else altogether?”

Judging from the way our gov’t officials’ approach to the Bill Ayers issue has been, it would appear to be something that can “safely” be “ignored.” They cannot even make a case for the controversial birth certificate issue. What to do? How about delving into what accounts for the support that Obama gets. To my mind, that is a more troubling problem.

…what accounts for the support that Obama gets. To my mind, that is a more troubling problem.

40+ years of brainwashing passing for public education, intentionally crafting an army of useful idiots who are ignorant of their rights and responsibilities under our Constitution, a shallow culture unable to discern character (or lack thereof) a whole bunch of people impressed with the perfect crease in Obama’s pants…where to start, where to end ?

Brings again to my mind the excellent piece written by Charles Murray, entitled “Prole Models.” It’s a must-read, as it explains in detail a lot of what is behind our societal decadence.

It’s almost as if one “fix” to be considered would be the requirement that some sort of test should be passed before voting. Too extreme though. How about dividing the country in half, with the reasonable people living on one side, the loonies on the other? Nah. That would never work either.

Bottom line, “it all starts at home,” IOW, the way we raise our children……

Unless you live in an isolated community populated by people of common belief and values, you don’t raise your children any more. The minute you turn on a TV, let them have a computer or video game, and especially send them to public school, they are no longer your children and you have ever lessening control and influence. In the guise of teaching them to avoid and report “abuse” the school undermines all parental authority. The popular culture teaches them contempt for adults, especially adult males, who are always portrayed as either brutal, stupid, or both.

At the Founding other than a very few larger towns and cities America was a land of 12 mile towns sited because that was about the maximum distance one could travel and return in a day by horse or horse-drawn vehicle. Outside the few towns families either lived alone on their farm or more commonly in clan communities formed because of a family or religious tie between the members of that community.

Today, relatively few people regularly go to church in much of the Country. Social and fraternal organizations are in steep decline. Most people’s social contact is with their immediate neighbors, and many don’t even have that, and with their co-workers or in the case of children, their school mates, because not many kids play outside in the neighborhood anymore. So, for most, parents have ever diminishing influence and kids are “raised” by the school, the internet, the TV, and popular culture. That should frighten us all. That said, I sure don’t long for a return to the poverty, ignorance, and xenophobia I grew up with in a small Southern town in the ’50s and ’60s.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”

“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

That quote was circulated in a chain e-mail. I was curious about its origin, and spent several hours one Saturday trying to track it down. I came up empty-handed. The only thing I determined for certain is that it did not originate in an Eastern European newspaper, as is often claimed. The earliest citation I found was in an American blog comment from January 2010, which predated its appearance in the European newspaper. But even then, the commenter was quoting a chain e-mail he received. So the original author of the quote remains a mystery.

The above quote could well end up becoming America’s epitaph. I hope it isn’t so.

Should one blame the victim for a violent crime? Perhaps a woman who is raped should not have dressed so provocatively. Maybe a man who is murdered should have moved to a different neighborhood. Maybe a child who is molested should have been more cautious.

Sure, it’s clear that Americans voted for the criminal…but you have to recognize that there was a massive effort by the media to hide his past and lift him up. That effort was only possible because of a 60+ year effort by marxists to takeover the media and intelligencia.

America was conned. It isn’t exclusively because Americans acted naively and stupidly.

I believe our very own cfbleachers posted that originally. I remember reading that. It fits exactly with his style. He has a brutally acerbic style. Read his other posts, and you will recognize the style.

The EU’s problem is not the Greek economy: it’s the Greeks. When someone figures out how to make all those Greeks into Germans, everything will be fine.
Otherwise, ain’t happenin’.
The same goes for American Blacks. By the mid-60s, they were well on the road to happiness and prosperity. I’ll give you chapter and verse, if you require it. I lived it. Then, all Hell broke loose.
So, tell me again: why do we celebrate MLK day? Better yet, why do blacks?

…40+ years of brainwashing passing for public education, intentionally crafting an army of useful idiots who are ignorant of their rights and responsibilities under our Constitution…

Yes, and isn’t it interesting that of all things, Civics was de-rated and no longer taught oh, right around when the 60s protest generation were just beginning to really gain influence in education. Which would be, say, around 40 years ago.

In my Senior year in high school, 1966-67, American Government was a year-long class required for graduation. We spent the first half of the year studying the US Constitution line by line and it was far tougher than the college con law classes I’ve had. We spent the second half studying communism and the Soviet Union and comparing and contrasting the US and USSR; the comparison wasn’t favorable to the USSR.

The intense “dumbing down” of public education is primarily a product of the mid-’70 and beyond when SDs all over the Country were being sued for discrimination, testing was abolished on theories of disparate impact, etc. Rather than acknowleging that 200 years of slavery and a hundred years of “separate but equal” had left a large percentage of Blacks woefully behind academically, the whole public school system just gamed the testing or abolished it altogether and academic rigor as well as discipline simply vanished. The promise of integration was that bringing Blacks into White schools would quickly result in equal academic achievement. In a sense, I guess that’s true, for now the White kids are as poorly eductated as the Blacks were in Jim Crow.

In my case, the course was called “Americanism vs Communism.” My senior year, sixth period, right after gym class (another course they now don’t require). It was all I could do to stay awake in that class.

“How about delving into what accounts for the support that Obama gets.”

Polls have already given us the answer to that.

The demographics of the electorate are changing dramatically. In 1980 when Reagan ran for President, the electorate was 88% white. Today it’s only 74% white, with 13% black and 9% Hispanic.

Blacks are strong for Obama; most Hispanics are too (though they’ve grumbled recently about immigration).

Among whites, 22% are die-hard leftists.

So that represents a firm base of support for Obama in around the 40% level.

In 1980, Reagan won a 10-point landslide, mostly because he won 56% of the white vote. But as I said, since 1980 there has been a 14-point drop in the white vote. Had Reagan tried to run against today’s demographics, he would have ended up with only 49% of the popular vote. (Check this yourself with a spreadsheet.) That’s right. Reagan might have lost.

The country is starting to look multiracial and multicultural, like New York City scaled up. And in New York City, the mayors are either staunch Democrats or moderate Republicans. No staunch conservative could get elected there.

Which brings up the question I have been wondering about: Why are white progressives gleeful at the prospect of white Americans becoming a minority race in America in the near future? What could motivate them to revel in the loss of our America?

There’s not much I can add to the excellent replies you’ve already received. Seems to me we were indeed the victim of an insidious campaign of “demoralization” modelled on Soviet techniques. It seems to have been launched as early as the 1930′s by a group of Socialist professors at Columbia University, and spread from there. It reached critical mass in the 60′s, penetrating every layer and sector of society. “The Long March through the institutions had begun”.

I do think though that in some ways we were willing victims, at least some of us (myself included). The leftist appeal is a very powerful one because it targets some of the most elemental, and influential aspects of our psyches: 1) fear, 2) resentment, 3) the desire for security, 4) the instinct towards group conformity, 5) the instinct towards mass violence (and other sadistic impulses…) and 6) it also attracts those who are drawn to wielding monolithic power. There are probably others but you get the idea. Most of can tell when we are being lulled, or seduced or otherwise recruited by our passions, but we often go along because, well, we are not entirely rational creatures. It takes a lot of training during childhood to instill a strong sense of identity and purpose, and will-power, but even then we do not always resist these siren-songs in life. The leftists have spent decades studying mass-behavior, and how to manipulate the individual to influence the group. That is why their two primary targets early on were academia and the media. Control these two institutions and you are in an excellent position to shape the thoughts and values of society. None of this new to you I’m sure.

I say complicit because though most of us were at least vaguely aware that the left was undertaking this campaign, few of us really focused in on it and took it seriously until it was almost too late.

Another powerful tool that the Left has used against us is to turn our material success against us. What I mean is that our ability to develop low-cost technological accessories to reduced drudgery, improve productivity and also, to entertain, has a downside too. Humans also have 7) an acquisitive, possessive nature. By emphasizing the individual and his immediate needs, we have given ourselves a vast case of ADD. I’m not arguing against free-enterprise and the empowered individual (far be it), just saying there is a downside to everything and the we therefore must develop an awareness of these things, or we will become the victims of our own successes. The left is vigilant in this regard. Books have been written about how to create a society that is driven by its appetites alone (i.e. to enslave it). These are dangerous ideas and the antidote is daylight. We should teach our children to be wary of someone who appeals only to their resentments and their desires. This is usually the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

It is a critical problem. I am a huge admirer of Ronald Reagan. He not only aggressively opposed murderous Communism on the world stage, he opposed it at home. He saw and denounced the left’s efforts to collectivize the economy and the institutions of government. And he spoke eloquently about the threat of cultural Marxism. But even that was not enough. Leftists conceal their agenda within appeals to high moral causes. This makes them difficult to counter. It will take time and determination. Once Obama is gone, there will have to be some sort of national “Truth and Reconciliation” process wherein the crimes of the left are exposed, and the guilty given an opportunity to confess. Only such a national drama can truly bring the scope and scale of what these lefties have been up to to light, and create the opportunity to broadcast the antidote.

It won’t be easy. But that smoking ad gives me a sense that at least one candidate has some creative ideas about how we might approach such a vital task.

G wrote: “Books have been written about how to create a society that is driven by its appetites alone (i.e. to enslave it). These are dangerous ideas and the antidote is daylight. We should teach our children to be wary of someone who appeals only to their resentments and their desires. This is usually the wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Whereas, when the greens talk about denying some of our needs/desires in order to make a lower petro-consumption economy possible, you would blast them for some other kind of depravity. Good grief, there is always a tension between people as individuals and people as members of groups or society as a whole and most of what you are describing in your “sly leftist plot” rhetoric concerns some aspect of this tension. If you said, “we have to re-evaluate how the rights of individuals have become too subservient to the obligations and regulations imposed by the group,” we would have a place from which we could start a discussion, but the palaver is all about plotting (as if right wing think thanks were not consciously “plotting” all the time to define agendas).
Apparently, you guys need to feel that you are fighting some holy war against the infidel, but my sense is that such talk will work up the folks you already have, but distance more than half of the center. More people are workers than are entrepreneurs, by a LOT. Is it a shock that a country of 300 million is going to be more and more concerned about society and groups, as opposed to the individual? You understand that the problem is “deep” in our society, but still want to define it as a plot, the way lefties talk abut the plots of capitalists to usurp, pollute, amass needless wealth, blah, blah. You both take “natural” things which humans do and demonize the part which you don’t like. Hence, we have the wacky Proreason and many others of you at times, equating a social, group-oriented trend in an increasingly urban society to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pott.
At its most extreme application (which I hear here more and more) every liberal idea becomes the equivalent of the Gulag. For the hundredth time, Obama has made you as crazy as GWB’s going into Iraq made the left.
For what it’s worth, the OT God seemed to have a covenant with his “people,” whereas the NT God, Jesus had it more with the individual (somehow leading to the Church with a capital C from which Luther rebelled.) Does mankind always tend toward GROUP focus, but experience intermittent revolt of individuals, which soon form themselves into groups and excercise their own group think? Just asking.

Yes, there is a natural pattern in the evolution of human societies. Power concentrates over time, sometimes to monolithic proportions, then something happens and it dissipates again. Repeat ad infinitum. (By my definition, increased collectivism means increased bureaucracy and denser concentrations of power. Though they can be bought by the wealthy, those who control the bureaucracy ultimately control everything. The only things historically that bring them down are popular uprisings (if they are led by charismatic figures they can be quite destructive of the old order), or external forces like a foreign conqueror. The left (now through the Wall Street protests) is trying to claim the mantle of the popular uprising against the unjust concentration of arbitrary power. In fact, I (many of us here) contend that the Dems under Obama have become the primary vehicle for co-opting vast swaths of economic, political, bureaucratic and even cultural power. They claim (among themselves) that it is in the service of a higher good, but in truth it is to feed their disease.

We are social animals, and so naturally there are many areas where organized, collective behavior is in our interest. Society itself is a vast collective enterprise, and as you say, the tension between social demands and the will of the individual is the knife-edge upon which a healthy society rises, innovates, grows rigid and morbid, and falls. I happen to believe that the best kind of society is one that encourages the individual to innovate, think freely, take risks, create, challenge ideas, challenge power, change directions and move up and down the social ladder with as few impediments as possible. But for such a society to be stable, a strong respect for law and a consensual process is necessary, and those must be founded in principles that all (or most) can understand and appreciate as fundamental. Hence my great admiration for the Constitution, which does not place power in the hands of a king or annointed elite; instead lays upon an idea: the idea that all men are equal (not equal in any individual attribute, but equal in their humanity), and they therefore they deserve the right to pursue their lives however they see fit). Lefties love to parse these ideas and single out the inconsistencies, but for me they are immutable. Life itself is full of paradox, that does not render it invalid.

The point is to leave it up to people as they go about their daily lives, to form the kinds of collectives they choose, when and how they choose, to whatever ends they choose; not to have a self-annointed elite impose it upon them. And this is what is happening under the Obama cabal.

Dwight, I’m not going to bother listing all of the actions, from ramming through massive redistributive policies in totally unilateral fashion, to by-passing congress and appointing czars to legislate by fiat, to a President who calls political opponents “enemies”, who makes close allies of Communist terrorists and venemous race baiters, who stands by silent as his political supporters call for attacks against middle-class America.

You are a smart fellow and so know as well as I do (better, since you are one of them) that the leftists within media, academia, Hollywood, and throughout our culture are making a last desperate attempt to impose collectivist rule (and rob the nation blind in the process) so that they can seize control of the commanding heights of the world economy. So please, don’t talk to me about “natural” processes. It is increasingly clear to an increasing majority of us exactly what is going on here. You lefties took a dangerous gambit (and you don’t need me to tell you that in turn). I personally think it will ill-timed, predicated on several false assumptions and pursuded in a hesitating manner punctuated by sudden highly visible moves (in other words executed perfectly to draw attention to itself). This tells me that the people driving this thing (we know who they are) are brilliant, but have allowed themselves to be blinded by their own brilliance, and so, are not that bright after all. Now, let the chips fall where they may.

You wrote: “You are a smart fellow and so know as well as I do (better, since you are one of them) that the leftists within media, academia, Hollywood, and throughout our culture are making a last desperate attempt to impose collectivist rule (and rob the nation blind in the process) so that they can seize control of the commanding heights of the world economy.”

“Last, desperate, attempt?” Er no. The whole movement of the 20th and 21st Century has been toward bigger government. If Obama loses the next election, the next President is not going to change that trend, any more than Reagan (or name any other Republican President) did. They may slow the rate of growth in certain areas or provide some beneficial (we hope) budget tightening, but the dramatic turn-arounds which, “last desperate attempt” implies aren’t really there. You guys entertain yourselves with paranoid drama; meanwhile there are more practical, Paul Ryan type questions regarding making numbers work for things like Social Security, Medicare, Prescription drugs etc. We are stuck between demagogues on both sides, and finding a clear-thinking adult to deal with the problem seems to be the last option we get. What could be clearer than the fact that we have to cut spending (which really means slow the rate of increase) AND raise taxes? Romney may be the guy to do this, partially because so many righties despise him. We need a middle solution here, which is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to say it. Despite the fact that we almost always have our decisions and solutions come from the middle, so many people here pride themselves on NOT being from the middle. They don’t think that the middle is any fun. All the fun is out at the extremes making all sorts of absurd, if heartFELT, assertions.
Two things are certain in life, death and….what? That was said long before Obama.

Your hackneyed tactics have no effect on me Dwight. I am made of kryptonite. We have learned (through long, bitter experience) not to trust leftist calls for moderation and compromise. These are the tones you adopt when you feel exposed or cornered. And when we accede to them, you grab what you can but never live up to your end of the bargain. In fact you take the opportunity to demonize us further. This tactic is spelled out by Saul Alinksy, one of Obama’s patron saints. And to tell you the truth I take it as an insult that you would attempt it here.

You have fully revealed yourselves now. Those of us who see you for what you are (and we are legion) stand in complete opposition to everything you stand for. We will not compromise this time. You have declared war on us and we take up the challenge. And we mean to win.

PS – And the fact that someone like you endorses a Romney makes me lean even closer towards a Cain, a Perry, a Bachman, a Gingrich or a Pawlenty. Anyone but Romney (or Obama, of course).

PPS – I’m a HUGE fan of Paul Ryan (and Rubio, and others…). What a breath of fresh air! His principles and his passion for freedom and democracy, and above all his courage are inspiring. Yes his tone is cool and polished (I am cut from different cloth). But I suspect that if the three of us were to sit down over a couple of beers, you would find that his worldview would more closely coincide with mine than with yours.

All of a sudden you lost it, stopped being rational and went into emoting: “You have fully revealed yourselves now. Those of us who see you for what you are (and we are legion) stand in complete opposition to everything you stand for. We will not compromise this time. You have declared war on us and we take up the challenge. And we mean to win.”

What? Did someone slip something into your water, or do you just tend to go off the deep end after a couple posts? I have declared war on you??? Did my description of the growth of government in the last century and the likelihood that such will continue set you off? From where I’m sitting, that was pretty much of a common sense observation. Got any evidence to the contrary?

“Did my description of the growth of government in the last century and the likelihood that such will continue set you off?”
No Dwight. I addressed that point in some detail and gave you my take on it in my previous post. But in typical lefty fashion, you ignore what I wrote and press your ad hominem attack instead (which tells me you have no solid reply).
What set me off is that you completely side-step my argument (that we are under siege by a neo-Communist cabal with global aspirations), and then imply that you are the only clear-thinking adult around. It is typical leftist misdirection. It is irritating because it is a waste of my time. And it is a depressing reminder that people like you, who are completely uninterested in the truth and justice they claim to pursue but rather see every exchange as a means of sowing confusion and pushing their agenda, exist. I guess that’s why you spend your time trolling around here. So who is the one “fighting a Holy War” Dwight?

The person fighting the Holy War? That would be the one talking about “siege by a neo-Communist cabal with global aspirations.” Just because I don’t buy your plot talk, how do you get to the “fact” that I am fighting a Holy War? You are the one making extreme statements not me, but by your logic, because I am not buying what you are selling, I am pushing my “agenda.” The fact that you misread me so badly is a clue to me that you are also misreading the huge commie plot. I can’t believe that because I do not beleeeve what you beleeeeve, that I therefore become all those bad lefty names you are throwing out there.

“Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst Karen Finney said this the other day, “One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”

This from the party that gave us people like Robert Byrd, who was a grand wizard in the KKK and the ever popular George Wallace, who fought desegragation with every breath in his body. Remember him on those schoolhouse steps trying to prevent black kids from going to school? Yes, good times you Democrats, good times.

Americans hate hypocrites and liars. The democrats are both in SPADES. Now that’s a pun Wallace would have approved of.

This is one of Professor Hanson’s most cogent and closely-reasoned articles – High praise indeed since clarity and logic come so naturally to him. The term “indulgences” is exactly right. A “progressive” can excuse the most amazingly hypocritical behavior in his own case as long as he loudly proclaims his fidelity to the standard liberal talking points. It is even worse than the 16th Century practices of the Catholic Church. At least Johannes Tetzel actually required the flock to pay for their indulgences. Today’s escape from Hell can be putchased by mere word preferably said before a television camera.

Would that we had a present day Castle Church of Wittenberg where this essay could be nailed to the door for all to read.

My favorite is the the Lecturer In Chief and his wife (Michelle Antoinette Obama) take separate planes to their luxurious vacations even though they leave only two hours apart!!!

The swells from Hollyweird bring in so many private airplanes that special logistics had to be used at the DC airport for the inauguration; then the CIC lectures businessmen about private jets. He crashed the private jet market, and the Janes and Joes lose their jobs.

Jesus had a special world for the Pharasees. The do as I tell you, but its not for me people: hypocrites. Just like Michael Moore going to OWS and pretending he’s not part of the 1%. Or Roseann Barr who sets the guillitine level at $100 million. Why $100 million? Becasue Roseann only has $80 mil. And for the pathetic ALGore who lives in luxurious mansions and dares to lecture us about energy use.

I shall honor you, VDH, with what some would consider a pejorative; you are part of the 1-percenters [on the intellectual front at least]. Unfortunately, that puts you at the millionaire end of the spectrum and a good deal of the rest of the population at the gum wrapper in the gutter end. Looking forward to next week’s entry.

Proreason wrote “How many lives has ethanol cost? How many lives could have been saved with the billions of dollars of graft poured into Solyndra and other scams. How many lives could have been saved with the 900 billion sprinkled by the criminal in the white house to his foot soldiers. How many lives did creating the 2008 financial crisis end prematurely? How many lives have liberal policies in the inner cities of the US cost? How many lives have been aborted for convenience?

Somebody has probably accounted for it all. The total number could be in the billions, even without counting Dwight’s favorite dictators. All for good causes, of course. No matter what the consequences, if the violent left declares something a good cause, it must be worth the pain an misery, by definition.

We should just give the well meaning leftists a chance. It’s extreme to criticize them. We should all be cool and rational like Dwight.”

I don’t hope for cool and rational from you, but when you guys start citing DDT bans, Ethanol, Solyndra, etc to prove that Dems are among the worst “criminals” in history, you join the lefties in their absurd blather about the dreadful “costs” of certain kinds of action or inaction. It cheapens the meaning of the word criminal and making it instead, a person with whose political views you differ.

I also note your inability to argue without throwing dust in the air about my loving Stalin yada, yada. Whatsa matter, can’t stick to the facts? When you have to go to that level, it reflects either stupidity or desperation. How about bringing in my mother? ;-)

You, apparently, can’t help it. The sadder (but hardly surprising) part is that more of the supposedly rational people around here do not call you out.

I could be wrong of course, but perhaps some think what I said in an earlier post: “Nothing to see here……”

AFA DDT is concerned though, it’s eradication brought upon many in some countries needless cases of malaria, which culminated in untold tens of thousands of needless, preventable, miserable, painful deaths. Ethanol? Very harmful to many engines, particularly the two-cycle ones (blowers, hedge clippers, etc.). Solyndra? Corporate welfare at its best. Are these things truly criminal or just mere cases of bad judgement? The answers range according to whom one talks to.

Seems to me that liberals must have unerringly bad judgement, since that seems to be the proposed problem.

Let’s see; Russia, Red China, Cuba, Vietnam, Communist East Europe, Venezuala, Socialist Europe since WWII, Mexico, Haiti, the United States since Reagan, Detriot, East St. Louis, Oakland, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, NYC before Gulliani, every other liberal city in the world.

Back in medieval days when Greenland was really green and Iceland was too and grapes grew in Scotland and there was not a single MAN MADE machine emitting CO2. The atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher than they are now and plants flourished as did mankind. If you want to know about Climate Change talk to a GEOLOGIST not a Meteorologist who cant even tell you if it will rain tomorrow or not. A Geologist meanwhile can confirm that rises in CO2 level ALWAYS follow Global warming and NEVER precede it.
Green NAZIS are anti CO2, CO2 feeds plants and gives us food, therefore Green NAZIS are anti LIFE.

Bloomberg.com recently published an article by Jonathan Alter titled, “Obama Miracle Is White House Free of Scandal.” There are very few better examples of liberal obtuseness and evidence they suffer from acute political astigmatism.

Alter, liberal author, liberal columnist, senior editor of Newsweek for 28 years who helped drive that liberal magazine into virtual bankruptcy and its sale for the tidy sum of one dollar, frequent contributor to Al Franken’s liberal Air America which filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy, still appears as a commentator on liberal MSNBC among other liberal MSM and still totally idolizes liberal president Barack Hussein Obama.

Did I mention Jonathan Alter is liberal?

Evidently flummoxed by fellow leftists’ waning support for our failing, flailing chief executive, Alter successfully attempts in his piece on Obama’s miraculous avoidance of scandal, its “scandal-less state,” to be as honest and transparent as the hero he so deeply admires.

“Obama Miracle” would be comical if not for the Halloween-y scariness of its author’s knowing commission of deceptions.

Alter skirts the dirt and completely avoids reference to what is rapidly developing into the most contemptible presidential scandal since Republican president Richard Nixon lied about Watergate and Democrat president Bill Clinton lied under sworn oath.

In fact, Obama’s scandals are far worse than Nixon’s and Clinton’s. They merely lied to protect their sorry arses and to deceive the American people but Nixon was just stupid and Clinton just a congenital liar. Obama, and his henchmen, have not only lied but have cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars and, more reprehensibly, have cost the life of a border patrol agent.

That last, deadly fiasco, the grossly-botched Department of Justice/ATF Fast and Furious gun-running operation, effectively gave some 1500 weapons to Mexican drug cartels to wreak havoc south of our border and to murder agent Brian Terry.

Government and law enforcement agencies often foul up stings like Fast and Furious. What they are not expected to do is what Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder has done, lie and obstruct congressional inquiries into what went wrong.

Jonathan Alter’s reaction to Fast and Furious and its relevance to administration scandals? Fast and Furious? What Fast and Furious? Alter would sooner air Holder’s filthy New Black Panther Party linen!

Either Alter is ignorant, obtuse, Obama’s cover-up point man, or all three.

While praising the president’s honesty, character, and integrity without sourcing any of those debatable attributes, Alter lambastes Republicans for allegedly tarnishing Obama’s reputation and attacks the Obamian favorite whipping network, Fox News, for “manufactured controversies,” also without providing any substantiation.

He criticizes GOP Rep. Darrell Issa’s contentions that Obama’s is “one of the most corrupt administrations” in history, a view predicated mainly on the White House and Justice Department consistently stonewalling on every issue Issa is trying to investigate.

He accuses Fox of manufacturing stories concerning the multitude of Obama’s extremist “policy czars,” those secretive heads of agencies recruited from the leftist fringes and put in place without congressional scrutiny.

Alter knows full well that stonewalling, refusals to cooperate with legally-constituted authorities, is invariably indicative of illegalities and unethical conduct. At the very least, they put the lie to this president’s vaunted, unfulfilled, transparency.

As for Fox, he knows that the only conservative alternative to the liberal mainstream media has exposed far more than just the czar scandals . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5842

A vassal pays the ‘king’ a pledge of fealty. In return he is granted hommage. In other words you swear solidarity to the party elders and in return you get a position carved out for you. You get to keep that position by keeping the serfs below you in line and cutting in those above you in for a piece of the action: campaign donations, votes, promotion of ‘fairness’, etc.

A vassalage can be hereditary but each generation has to repledge fealty to gain hommage. Along the way the vassals in various forms acknowledge one another as a class and a sense of entitlement develops among their peers.

Replace Divine Right with something more modern and Progressive sounding that amounts to ‘we know whats best for them’ and presto! The Neo-Feudalist state. The Hapsburgs v2.0.

Indulgences. The wink-and-a-nod crowd. It isn’t about the profession of support or the money you pay. These are just the Secret Handshakes by which they recognize one another. They are all in on the scheme.

These are folks who have sold their souls for a 30 pieces of silver. They will do whatever is necessary to obtain the ‘good life’ on the cheap. Generally, they are mediocrities who could not obtain riches any other way. (Look at the difference between the old guard in Congress and the freshmen. Huge difference in quality.) Or they are lazy louts who prefer to give the semblance of working, but who are really just punching the clock (like the professariat who have interns who do all the real work for them).

Such people wear disguises, sheep’s clothing. However, they only wear them as much as they absolutely must and no more. The more they consolidate their power, the less they pretend, and the more outrageous are their statements, the more savage their behavior. The mask really comes off, when they begin to lose their now-accustomed power. They are then revealed as the wolves they are. Like the union thugs.

Many folks have a hard time accepting that these people really are evil. Most are not dupes. They have agreed to partake in the scheme. They get their cut. They also no longer have to restrain their basest nature. Indeed, they get to embrace it. They are drunk. Like with alcohol, they are freed from their inhibitions, and can indulge themselves. The more power, the more they can indulge themselves.

It is ironic that the lefts number one accusation of the moralistic right, hipocracy, is something that they themselves are equaly guilty of. Of course I am libertarian, and dont much care for either moralistic or leftist hipocracy. Libertarians are about the only ones who I have not seen being guilty of hipocracy, although if any libertarian ever asked for a gov bailout, they would definitely be guilty. Perhaps if a libertarian senior called for cuts to every gov program BUT SS and mediare, they would be guilty of hipocracy as well. So far though, most libertarians I have seen are free of this type of hipocracy.

You could also point to noted film makers and actors (James Cameron, Robert Redford, Sean Penn, George Clooney etc) who make ridiculously large salaries when they could, if they chose, hire a lot more key grips, carpenters, gaffers and the like, in their films as a way to redistribute income.

Great work! This is the type of info that are supposed to be shared around the net. Disgrace on the seek engines for no longer positioning this put up upper! Come on over and visit my site . Thank you =)